Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, February 28, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 741)

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Donald-Trump-Dubuque-Iowa

DUBUQUE, IA – AUGUST 25: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to guests gathered from around Iowa and neighboring Wisconsin. (PHOTO: GETTY)

That’s a famous quote attributed to George Washington, but it’s apparently an urban legend. There’s no evidence Washington wrote or spoke those words. That being said, I obviously appreciate the sentiment. So, much so that I’m tempted to make up a similar quote and start a rumor that it comes from Washington.

Politicians don’t have reason or sense – they are consumed by ambition. Like fire they are capable of causing great damage and only have value in very controlled circumstances.

That statement surely would apply to the ruling class in Washington, particularly those running for President. And it also would apply to many of the “outsider” candidates as well, including Donald Trump.

In other words, we should accept the fact that politicians are pathologically ambitious narcissists (which is why these jokes and cartoons are so funny) and simply try to figure out whether they might be vehicles for good and necessary reforms.

I have a very straightforward rule for determining whether politicians “have value in very controlled circumstances.” Simply stated, if they are open to tax hikes, then I can state – with 99 percent confidence – that they have no desire to control the size, cost, and power of the federal government.

Based on that rule, I’m skeptical about Donald Trump.

To understand my doubts, here are some passages from a story on the topic in the New York Times.

For years, Republicans have run for office on promises of cutting taxes… But this election cycle, the Republican presidential candidate who currently leads in most polls is taking a different approach… Mr. Trump has…suggested he would increase taxes on the compensation of hedge fund managers. And he has vowed to change laws that allow American companies to benefit from cheaper tax rates by using mergers to base their operations outside the United States.

These policy positions are raising a lot of eyebrows.

“All of those are anti-growth policies,” said David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth… “Those aren’t the types of things a typical Republican candidate would say,” said Michael R. Strain, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, referring to the candidate’s comments on hedge funds, support for entitlement spending and the imposing of trade tariffs.

And Trump’s failure to sign the no-tax-hike pledge exacerbates the concerns, particularly when combined with his inconsistent statements on tax reform.

Mr. Trump and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida are the only leading Republican candidates who have not signed a pledge to not raise taxes. …In an interview with Fox News last week, Mr. Trump said a flat tax would be a viable improvement to America’s tax system. Moments later, he suggested that a flat tax would be unfair because the rich would be taxed at the same rate as the poor.

Trump’s views – to the extent that they can be deciphered – are causing angst for some GOPers, as illustrated by these excerpts from a column in the Washington Post.

Trump’s surging campaign has pushed the party in a different direction, one that often clashes with free-market principles that have long underpinned GOP economic policy. …Traditional supply-side thinkers…have urged candidates to flatten tax rates and reduce regulations to unleash faster economic growth.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner writes about Trump’s fiscal policy in the context of traditional Republican orthodoxy.

Trump is preparing a tax proposal that will again set him far apart from the party’s powers-that-be. …Trump has been sending signals that his tax proposal, which he says will be “comprehensive,” will include higher rates for some of the richest Americans, a position generally at odds with Republican orthodoxy. “I want to see lower taxes,” Trump said at an appearance in Norwood, Mass., on Friday night. “But on some people, they’re not doing their fair share.”

And if his campaign manager is accurately channeling Trump’s views. the candidate even equates higher taxes with making America great.

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski would say little about Trump’s intentions, but noted that “Mr. Trump has said that he does not mind paying what is required to make our country great again.” Raising taxes on anyone, even the super rich, has generally been anathema to Republicans for a generation.

Wow, what’s next, a Biden-esque assertion that higher tax payments are patriotic?!?

Though, to be fair, it’s unclear whether Trump actually wants the federal government to have more money.

Perhaps the tax increases that he supports would be offset by tax cuts elsewhere, which is what would happen with major tax reform proposals such as the flat tax.

Though the fact that Trump so far has refused to sign the no-tax-hike pledge obviously makes me suspicious of his true goals.

In his column for the New York Times, Ross Douthat also wonders whether Trump will upend existing GOP thinking.

In movement conservatism, there’s an ongoing, interesting tension between starve-the-leviathan theories and the supply-side vision, exemplified by the Wall Street Journal editorial page among other sources, in which low taxes on high incomes and investment can allegedly make the public coffers fuller. …my own (modest) faction, the reform conservatives, whose preferred tax vision (in its varying forms) basically seeks a rebalancing of conservative tax policy, an approach that’s still responsive to supply-side and pro-growth ideas but also addresses both the anxieties of middle class families… The Republican Party is the limited-government, anti-tax party, and the weird rise of Trumpism isn’t going to change that basic fact. But the way anti-tax sentiment manifests itself, and the policies associated with those sentiments, can alter with time and circumstances, and for the G.O.P.’s sake they need to change right now.

I’m mostly in the starve-the-beast camp, though I like the supply-side approach (perfectly captured in this image) because of the recognition of how good tax policy boosts growth.

And I see the “reform conservatives” as allies even if their ideal version of tax reform has a few warts.

So I’m willing to have a “big tent”…on the sole condition that I get to exclude those who want higher taxes.

And it remains to be seen whether Trump’s in that distasteful group.

P.S. Speaking of distasteful, keep in mind that when Trump says favorable things about trade protectionism, he’s really saying that he wants higher taxes on American consumers.

P.P.S. I care about policy rather than politics, so don’t hold your breath waiting for me to endorse any candidate (indeed, I’ve only made one presidential endorsement in the past six years).

But given my passionate support for the Georgia Bulldogs, I might overlook some of Donald Trump’s dubious views simply because he has support from someone who made my college years very enjoyable.

Herschel Walker…, the former running back stated the Republican hopeful is his No. 1 choice for president. “There’s not a doubt in my mind right now he is my frontrunner,” Walker told USA Today. …”(Trump) wanted to win and he was prepared to go out and do whatever it took to win,” Walker said. “He was a guy that always did what he said he was going to do.” …”When are we going to get back to what’s best for this country?” Walker said. “I think that’s what’s Donald is pushing to do.”

That being said, I’m only aware of one other time Herschel endorsed a politician and that guy lost.

P.P.P.S. Today’s column has focused on Trump’s worrisome views on tax policy. Well, one of the reasons he may be weak on taxes is because he has no desire to control spending. You don’t have to believe me. These are his own words.

“I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” Trump told The Daily Signal. “Every other Republican is going to cut, and even if they wouldn’t, they don’t know what to do because they don’t know where the money is. I do.”

Huh?!?

Let’s take a look at “where the money is.”

C4b-Projected-Spending-large

 

If “The Donald” doesn’t think we need genuine entitlement reform, there are only a few possible explanations.

  • He’s clueless.
  • He’s dishonest.
  • Or he wants the status quo and that’s why he’s leaving the door open for massive tax hikes.

If it’s the final option, he’s the GOP version of Bernie Sanders.

While the "outsider" candidates in the 2016

Hillary-Clinton-Ed-Henry

Hillary Clinton takes questions from Fox News’ Ed Henry in New Hampshire Tuesday amid reports the FBI believes someone tried to wipe the server.

Hillary Clinton shows signs of anger and desperation that pops out of her shell with shrill and extreme rhetoric. She should be nervous, with both the feds and rivals breathing down her neck.

But she’s no more effective at scaring her attackers than any other turtle under siege. She should retreat back inside, where at least her handlers can pretend she’s presidential — and inevitable. Her bunker mentality leads to unforced errors, such as irately exclaiming to Congress regarding Benghazi, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” But the more rattled she is the more she’ll emerge.

A few weeks ago, she lashed out against Republicans again for grilling her on the Obama administration’s response to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. “They’ll try to tell you this is about Benghazi, but it’s not. … It’s not about Benghazi. … It’s not about emails or servers, either. … I won’t get down in the mud with them. I won’t play politics with national security.”

Oh, then why did she pretend that an anti-Islam video triggered the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi? Evidence has shown — as we realized all along — that she knew then it was a planned terrorist attack and not a spontaneous eruption over an obscure video.

She says she won’t get down in the mud with Republicans, yet the entire purpose of her little rant was to sling mud. After all, she learned from the master — her husband, Bill — that to deflect charges, you hit back harder.

Let’s remember that Hillary was a disciple of Saul Alinsky’s before Barack Obama was. She knows his “rules for radicals” by heart, but she can’t pull them off like Bill or Obama because she lacks the finesse and charm, which just makes her angrier.

Last week in Ohio, she took it up a notch and railed against Republicans for their “extreme views about women.” She said: “We expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world. But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States. Yet they espouse out-of-date and out-of-touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st-century America.”

So it’s extreme and sexist to oppose the killing of unborn female and male children and mainstream to support late-term and partial-birth abortions? It’s progressive to support federal funding of a craven abortion factory whose founder was a racist monster who advocated eugenics? To sever funding for this corrupt organization would not deny access to women’s health services, which are available elsewhere.

Ironically, there may be a slight upside for Clinton in all these scandals, as they divert attention from her other profound weaknesses. She’s almost cartoonish; she’ll say anything to curry favor with her base, change positions on a dime and grossly modify her accent to pander to her audience’s ethnicity or location.

Besides, many believe that unless she’s indicted, neither the scandals nor her Democratic challengers will defeat her. Perhaps they won’t destroy her directly, but they could do so indirectly if they continue to force her out of hiding, because the more visible she is the poorer her chances. She is no longer an impressive figure, assuming she ever was, and she is strikingly unlikable and untrustworthy — facts borne out by polling data.

That a card-carrying socialist such as Bernie Sanders is above single digits anywhere, let alone leading in New Hampshire and surging in Iowa, speaks volumes about Clinton. It’s no wonder she tried to hide from the media as long as she could. Maybe it wasn’t as much about arrogance as it was her handlers trying to conceal her.

Things will just get worse for Clinton, because she’ll have to surface more frequently. Even if she isn’t fending off charges, she won’t be able to explain why she should be president because she has no reasons, other than her raw personal ambition, her sense of entitlement and her desire to be the first female president.

She can’t even define her candidacy at a basic level. Does she want to build on Obama’s legacy, God forbid? So far, she’s conflicted about this. On the one hand, she promises to double down on some of his worst policies and practices, such as immigration and the cavalier issuance of lawless executive orders, and on the other, she wants to divorce herself from those policies, as almost 6 in 10 Americans want the next president to change most of them.

As the establishment’s pick, Clinton has plenty of money and organization, but she is a horrible candidate. I hope we see more and more of Clinton, because her chances of becoming president will decrease in proportion.

With both the feds and rivals on

Ashley-Madison

Ashley-Madison (Screenshot)

To the thousands who’ve been outed as users of the Ashley Madison adultery website: You deserve sympathy. Your greatest sin was trusting a website to protect your identity — especially one that would have rated a 10 as a juicy target for hackers.

The second sin, for many of you, was believing that Ashley Madison was populated by heavy-breathing wives looking for action — as opposed to bots and cardboard participants.
Ashley Madison was apparently not a “wonderland” of 31 million men competing for 5.5 million women. “Only a paltry number of women’s accounts actually looked human,” Annalee Newitz wrote for Gizmodo. That is, only about 12,000 of the 5.5 million female profiles.

Bored office workers may have created many of the fake profiles and then vanished. And there are charges that the site itself fabricated women. One woman claims that Ashley Madison paid her to write more than 1,000 fake profiles in Portuguese for a Brazilian audience.

And how many of the real women — or men — were actually looking for an affair, as opposed to fooling around online? Women who’ve been on respectable dating sites, such as Match.com, say that lots of men there are “jerks” playing mind games with those seeking a good mate.

Nonetheless, Ashley Madison — with its trademark manicured finger covering a foxy mouth — has been denounced, defended and, most grievously, taken seriously.

One news outlet used the leaked details to make a chart purporting to show which states have the most cheaters. Alabama was No. 1. Data analysts have noted that Alabama is the first state in the alphabetical dropdown menu for people concocting profiles.

After about 15,000 federal workers, including active-duty military, were found to be trolling Ashley Madison, The Washington Post wondered aloud whether these employees should be fired for adultery. Surely not over adultery, much less the appearance of adultery, but playing around on taxpayer time is another matter.

The hackers, members of Impact Team, also got on their high horse about the wages of infidelity. They may have been trying to justify exposing the bank accounts and other personal information belonging to thousands of the “innocents” who signed up with Ashley Madison. (They had first demanded that the Canadian-based site come down, promising to trample on the members’ privacy if it didn’t.)

“Chances are your man signed up on the world’s biggest affair site, but never had one,” Impact Team wrote after its data dump. “He just tried to. If that distinction matters.”
First off, that distinction does matter. Secondly, why assume that the men tried to? How many men on the site were really looking to score in the physical sense? They may just have been curious about what was out there.

Oh, yes, the hackers “sharing” the users’ pictures and sexual preferences are keeping their own identities under wraps. Real heroes, they.

The Toronto police report that criminals are already trying to extort people on the leaked Ashley Madison list, threatening to share embarrassing data with the users’ friends, families and employers.

A wish to ridicule the whole phenomenon is tempered by some tragic results. That would include at least two suicides that are being blamed on the exposure.

Ashley Madison, the business, is now being charged with corporate crimes too numerous to list here. The chief executive of the parent company lost his job over the weekend.

The Web can be a very dangerous place for trusting people, including untrustworthy ones. As the Ashley Madison case shows, too many Internet users think they can do the ski jump when they belong on the bunny slope.

To the thousands who've been outed as

Jeb-Bush-Donald-Trump

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, left, and billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump, right.

Even those of us who are not supporters of either Donald Trump or Jeb Bush can learn something by comparing how each of these men handled people who tried to disrupt their question-and-answer period after a speech.

After Bush’s speech, hecklers from a group called “Black Lives Matter” caused Bush to simply leave the scene. When Trump opened his question-and-answer period by pointing to someone in the audience who had a question, a Hispanic immigration activist who had not been called on simply stood up and started haranguing.

Trump told the activist to sit down because someone else had been called on. But the harangue continued, until a security guard escorted the disrupter out of the room. And Jeb Bush later criticized Trump for having the disrupter removed!

What kind of president would someone make who caves in to those who act as if what they want automatically overrides other people’s rights — that the rules don’t apply to them?

Trump later allowed the disrupter back in, and answered his questions. Whether Trump’s answers were good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant to the larger issue of rules that apply to everyone. That was not enough to make “The Donald” a good candidate to become President of the United States. He is not. But these revealing incidents raise painful questions about electing Jeb Bush to be leader of the free world. The Republican establishment needs to understand why someone with all Trump’s faults could attract so many people who are sick of the approach that Jeb Bush represents.

No small part of the internal degeneration of American society has been a result of supposedly responsible officials caving in to whatever group is currently in vogue, and allowing them to trample on everyone else’s rights.

Some officials allow “the homeless” to urinate and defecate in public, right on the streets, or let organized hooligans who claim to represent “the 99 percent against the one percent” block traffic and keep neighborhoods awake with their noise through the night. Politicians who exempt from the law certain groups who have been chosen as mascots undermine the basis for a decent society — which everybody, from every group, deserves.

Even those who happen to be in vogue for the moment can lose big time when the vogue changes, as vogues do.

Back in the 1920s, when there was international outrage on the political left over the trial of anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to British leftist Harold Laski, pointing out that the trials of black defendants were far worse, but nobody seemed to care about that.

“I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black,” he said.

The vogue has changed since then — and it can change again, when some other group comes along that catches the fancy of the trend-setters, and sways politicians who go along to get along.

The goal of “the rule of law and not of men” has increasingly been abandoned in favor of government picking winners and losers. Too many in the media and in academia do the same.
Time and again, we have seen false charges of rape set off instant lynch mob reactions in the media and academia, regardless of how many previous false charges of rape have later been exposed as hoaxes.

The problem is not with the particular choices made as to whose interests are to override other people’s interests, but that picking winners and losers, in defiance of facts, is choosing a path that demoralizes a society, and leads to either a war of each against all or to a backlash of repression and revenge.

The recent televised murder of two media people by a black man who said that he wanted a “race war” was one sign of the madness of our times. Nobody who knows anything about the history of race wars, anywhere in the world, can expect anything good to come out of it. Unspeakable horrors have been the norm.

It is a long way from a couple of disruptive incidents on the political campaign trail to a race war. But these small incidents are just symptoms of larger and worse things that have already happened in America, when the rules have been routinely waived for some.

We do not need to risk still worse consequences if we get yet another President of the United States who acts as if it is just a question of whose ox is gored.

Even those of us who are not

Image: U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 19, 2015. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

The libertarian message of limited government generally is not warmly received in Washington because politicians, bureaucrats, cronyists, lobbyists, contractors, and other insiders profit from the status quo.

The D.C. area is now the richest region of the country, filled with folks who gladly support higher taxes because they realize that “They may send an additional 5 percent of their income to the IRS, but their income will be 20 percent higher because of all the money sloshing around Washington.” But what about folks in the real world? Do the folks from “outside the beltway” believe in smaller government?

As a general rule, I think ordinary people are sympathetic to limited government, particularly if you have a chance to dispassionately explain how nations with good policy routinely out-perform countries with bad policy.

But there are issues that present challenges because a non-trivial share of the population thinks the free-market approach is too radical or unrealistic. To cite a few examples that I’ve written about in the past:

Today, I want to add to that list. When discussing the merits of government intervention, there are people who generally believe in markets, but nonetheless argue that we need antitrust laws to protect consumers from avaricious companies.

I agree that businesses are looking to maximize profits, but I disagree with the notion that this puts consumers in peril. In a free-market economy, businesses can get money only by providing goods and services that are valued by consumers.

Indeed, consumers are only in danger when government puts its thumb on the scale with handouts, subsidies, restrictions, bailouts, regulations, licensingmandates, and other forms of intervention. Because when government rigs the market and hinders competition, that’s when consumers can get exploited.

Moreover, to the extent we have monopolies in America, it’s because of government. Just think of the Postal Service. Or Social Security. Or the air traffic control system. Those are all things that should be handled by the private sector, but they exist because of government coercion.

Now that we’ve reviewed the theoretical argument, let’s look at how antitrust laws are grossly inconsistent in practice. Professor Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out that it’s possible for companies to get in trouble with antitrust bureaucrats regardless of the prices they charge.

If your company’s prices are too close to the same as your competitors’ prices, government bureaucrats will come after you and charge you with price-fixing and collusion as 35 auto parts manufacturers found out recently… If your company’s prices are too high, government bureaucrats will come after you and charge you with price-gouging, as five airlines found out recently… And finally, if your company’s prices are too low, government bureaucrats will come after you and charge you with predatory pricing or selling products below cost, as the grocery chain Meijer found out recently after opening stores in Wisconsin.

Now put yourself in the position of a pricing manager at a company. What are you supposed to do if bureaucrats can come after you no matter what price you charge?!? This makes no sense.

And it sparked my memory. Back when I was a college student in the 1970s and first learning about free markets, I remember coming across a short film, The Incredible Bread Machine, that argued in favor of economic liberty.

It was accompanied by a poem that told the story of an entrepreneur named Tom Smith who invented a technology to produce cheap bread for the masses. That was good news, but then the price of bread rose after an increase in business taxation and that led to accusations that the entrepreneur was exploiting his “market power.”

And that’s when the antitrust bureaucrats got involved. Here’s the relevant section of the poem, and you’ll notice that 1970s satire is eerily similar to today’s antitrust reality.

So, antitrust now took a hand.
Of course, it was appalled
At what it found was going on.
The “bread trust,” it was called.

Now this was getting serious.
So Smith felt that he must
Have a friendly interview
With the men in antitrust.
incredible bread machineSo, hat in hand, he went to them.
They’d surely been misled;
No rule of law had he defied.
But then their lawyer said:

The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It’s vastly more efficient.
Now, let me state the present rules.

The lawyer then went on,
These very simpIe guidelines
You can rely upon:
You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less.

A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount:
That would be collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do, you see,
Then the market would be yours
And that’s monopoly!”

Price too high? Or price too low?
Now, which charge did they make?
Well, they weren’t loath to charging both
With Public Good at stake!

In fact, they went one better
They charged “monopoly!”
No muss, no fuss, oh woe is us,
Egad, they charged all three!

Here’s the 1975 film version of the Incredible Bread Machine. The poem begins shortly after 30:00, though I suggest watching the whole video for its historical value, as well as the commentary at the end by Milton Friedman.

[brid video=”14332″ player=”1929″ title=”The Incredible Bread Machine Film”]

P.S. On another topic, I can’t resist sharing this man-bites-dog passage from a recent editorial in the New York Times.

…the next government will have to do more to make the country more productive, and that includes…cutting pensions, streamlining regulations, privatizing state-owned businesses.

No, this isn’t a joke. The NYT actually endorsed pro-market reforms to shrink the size and scope of government.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the editorial was about Greece rather than United States.

But at least there’s hope that the editors are becoming more rational, particularly when you also consider that the New York Times recently published columns showing the superiority of funded pension systems over tax-and-transfer programs like Social Security and revealing that feminist-supported government intervention in labor markets hurts intended beneficiaries.

To be sure, a few good pieces hardly offset the NYT‘s long track record of economic illiteracy, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step.

The message of the Incredible Bread Machine

midwest-manufacturing-goods

Surveys gauging growth or contraction in Midwest manufacturing. (REUTERS)

The Chicago Business Barometer, also known as the Chicago PMI, fell to 54.4 from 54.7 in July, though it held above its 6-month average of 49.1. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expected the index to register at 54.5. A reading above 50 indicates expansion, while below 50 indicate contraction.

“It was pretty much steady as she goes in August with orders and output just about holding on to July’s gains,” said Philip Uglow, Chief economist of MNI Indicators. “While the slowdown earlier in the year looks temporary, we’re still some way below the strong growth rates seen towards the end of 2014,” Mr. Uglow added.

Most of the Business Barometer’s subindexes declined in August, with order backlogs falling 1.7 points to 46.2, posting the seventh straight month of contraction.

“We continue to muddle along,” said Alyce Andres-Frantz, MNI Chicago bureau chief. “Backlogs aren’t there, and purchasers aren’t hiring.”

While employment–fueled in part by July’s surge in output and orders–increased in August to the highest since April, the labor component remained in contraction for the fourth consecutive month. From July, the gauge rose 2.9 points to 49.1. In response to a special question, 63% of survey participants said they didn’t plan to expand their workforce over the next three months, and roughly 10% of respondents said they plan to hire permanent workers, and the numbers “are tiny,” Ms. Andres-Frantz said.

Production and new order indexes cooled, but both remained above their 12-month averages and were up from the abysmal levels reported from February to June. The prices paid gauge fell sharply to 47.3, down 7.2 points from July amid steep declines in commodity prices. Supplier deliveries rose into expansion, hitting the highest level since March.

Meanwhile, the August survey was conducted before the crash in Chinese markets, though Ms. Andres-Frantz noted that purchasers are viewing the downturn as a “temporary blip.”

Chicago PMI is among the last of the regional manufacturing surveys before the national Institute for Supply Management gauge is released Tuesday morning. Regional data has been mostly disappointing this month, with New York, Richmond and Kansas City manufacturers also reporting declines in activity while Philadelphia-area producers reported a modest uptick.

The Chicago Business Barometer, also known as

Wes-Craven-AP

File- This Oct. 16, 2010, file photo shows Wes Craven arriving at the Scream Awards in Los Angeles. Craven, whose “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Scream” movies made him one of the most recognizable names in the horror film genre, has died. He was 76. Craven’s family said in a statement that he died in his Los Angeles home Sunday after battling brain cancer. (AP Photo/Matt Sayles, File)

Wes Craven, the master of horror who scared and thrilled audiences with iconic and bloody suburban slashers like “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Scream” that made his name synonymous with horror, has died. Craven was 76.

In a statement, his family said that he died surrounded by his family in his Los Angeles home Sunday after battling brain cancer. Craven, a writer, director and editor, completely revamped the teen horror genre with the 1984 release of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” starring a then-unknown Johnny Depp, featuring the badly scarred knife-fingered monster Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund, who played the iconic Krueger, led to several sequels, as did his 1996 success, “Scream.”

Wesley Earl “Wes” Craven was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on Aug. 2, 1939 and earned a Master’s Degree in philosophy and writing from John Hopkins University. Before becoming a master of horror, Craven briefly taught as a college professor in Pennsylvania and New York, and even got his start in movies in pornography, where he worked under a pseudonym. But Craven broke into the horror genre under his own name was 1972’s with “The Last House on the Left,” a horror film about teenage girls abducted by thugs and taken into the woods.

The film as made for just $87,000 and was apparently thought to be graphic enough that is was censored in many countries. But it was a hit, with Roger Ebert saying it was “about four times as good as you’d expect.”

But it was “Nightmare on Elm Street,” a 1984 Ohio-set film about teenagers who are stalked in their dreams, which Craven wrote and directed that spawned a franchise. It was even remade in 2010. Craven said the idea was born in Cleveland when he was a child and lived next to a cemetery on an Elm Street.

Along with John Carpenter’s “Halloween,” “Nightmare on Elm Street” defined a teen horror tradition where helpless teens were preyed upon by supernatural villains in morality tales; usually promiscuous girls were the first to go.

Besides his work in horror films, Craven also directed the drama “Music of the Heart,” which earned Meryl Streep an Oscar nomination.

Craven is survived by his wife, producer Iya Labunka, a son, a daughter and a stepdaughter.

Wes Craven, the master of horror and

Bernie Sanders Can’t Point to a Single Example Of Socialism Success

Hillary-Clinton-Bernie-Sanders

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right. (Photo: AP)

Socialism is an economic failure. International socialism didn’t work in the Soviet Union. National socialism didn’t work in Germany. And democratic socialism, while avoiding the horrors of its communist and Nazi cousins, also has been a flop.

Socialism fails because it attempts to replace market-determined prices with various forms of central planning based on government-dictated prices. Moreover, socialism channels self interest in a destructive direction. In a free market, people get income and improve their lot in life by satisfying and fulfilling the needs of other people. In a socialist system, by contrast, people squabble over the re-slicing of a shrinking pie.

There’s a famous Winston Churchill quote that basically says that the ostensible problem with capitalism is that people aren’t equally rich, whereas the supposed attractiveness of socialism is that people get to be equally poor.

The Princess of the Levant sent me a visual version of Churchill’s quote, and it’s definitely worth sharing.

Both the Churchill quote and the above image are very entertaining. And they effectively make the point that statism is very bad for ordinary people. That being said, they’re not actually accurate.

Sure, the masses are equally impoverished by socialist systems, but a handful of people escape this fate. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the government elites have very comfortable lives. And that may be the understatement of the century, as indicated by this report in the U.K.-based Daily Mail. Here are some very relevant passages.

The daughter of Hugo Chavez, the former president who once declared ‘being rich is bad,’ may be the wealthiest woman in Venezuela, according to evidence reportedly in the hands of Venezuelan media outlets. Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35,…holds assets in American and Andorran banks totaling almost $4.2billion… Others close to Chavez managed to build up great personal wealth that was kept outside the petrostate. Alejandro Andrade, who served as Venezuela’s treasury minister from 2007 to 2010 and was reportedly a close associate of Chavez, was discovered to have $11.2billion in his name… During his lifetime, Hugo Chavez denounced wealthy individuals, once railing against the rich for being ‘lazy.’ ‘The rich don’t work, they’re lazy,’ he railed in a speech in 2010. ‘Every day they go drinking whiskey – almost every day – and drugs, cocaine, they travel.’

What a bunch of hypocrites. They denounce successful people who presumably earn money honestly, yet they amass huge fortunes by pilfering their nation. And what’s been happening in Venezuela is no different, I’m sure, than what happened in the past in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and other socialist regimes.

And I’m sure it’s still happening today in other socialist hell holes such as North Korea and Cuba. The elite enjoy undeserved and unearned wealth while ordinary people live wretched lives of deprivation. Everyone’s equal, but in reality, some are more equal than others.

Let’s close by citing some wise words about the impact of socialism on ordinary people from Kevin Williamson of National Review.

The United Socialist party’s disastrous economic policies have led to acute shortages of everything: rice, beans, flour, oil, eggs, soap, even toilet paper. Venezuela is full of state-run stores that are there to provide the poor with life’s necessities at subsidized prices, but the shelves are empty. …While Venezuela has endured food riots for years, the capital recently has been the scene of protests related to medical care. Venezuela has free universal health care — and a constitutional guarantee of access to it. That means exactly nothing in a country without enough doctors, medicine, or facilities. Chemotherapy is available in only three cities, with patients often traveling hours from the hinterlands to receive treatment. But the treatment has stopped.

Now ask yourself whether you think the party bosses are suffering like other citizens because of a lack of food and health care (or toilet paper!).

And that giant gap between the treatment of the elite vs. the peasantry tells you everything you need to know about socialism, whether it’s the brutal kind practiced in places such as Venezuela or the kinder, gentler (but equally hypocritical) versions found elsewhere.

International and national socialism have both been

Texas Sheriff, DA Slam “War on Police” and Anti-Cop Rhetoric

Houston-Sheriff-Deputy-Darren-Goforth-Shooter-Shannon-Miles-AP

Shannon Miles, 30, right, is in custody for the “execution” of Darren Goforth, 47, left, a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy. (PHOTO: AP)

Shannon J. Miles, 30, was arrested and charged Saturday with capital murder in the killing of Darren Goforth, 47, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. The suburban Houston sheriff’s deputy was filling his patrol car with gas at a station in Cypress when Miles allegedly and cowardly shot him “because he wore a uniform,” authorities said.

“Our assumption is that he [the deputy] was a target because he wore a uniform,” Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said. “At this moment, we found no other motive or indication that it was anything other than that.”

Hickman said the “execution” was “clearly unprovoked,” and that there was no evidence that Goforth knew Miles. The killing has been met with a strong emotional response from the local law enforcement community, with Hickman and Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson slamming the anti-police rhetoric fueling the Black Lives Matter movement. Activists with the St. Paul, Minn. branch of Black Lives Matter were recently caught on video chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em up” just hours after the deputy was ambushed and killed.

“We’ve heard Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. Well, cops’ lives matter, too,” DA Hickman said on Saturday, adding that the anti-police rhetoric and “war on police” have got to stop. Hickman also said they at least take some solace in knowing he has been caught.

“It gives us some peace knowing that this individual is no longer at large and that he wasn’t somebody that would be targeting the rest of the community.”

Houston-Sheriff-Deputy-Suspect

Shannon Miles, 30, right, is caught on video before the “execution” of Darren Goforth, 47, left, a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy. (PHOTO: AP/HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE)

Miles is likely to be arraigned in court on Monday for what Hickman characterized at a press conference as a “cold-blooded execution.”

Goforth, who is survived by his wife, a school teacher, and two children ages 12 and 15, became a police officer in his 30s, brother-in-law Stephen Allison told ABC News today.

“He wanted to spend his whole life in it once he got in it,” Allison, 46, said. “He really felt the brotherhood in the community. That’s what he loved to do. He was the rock in that family,” Allison said through tears.

Shannon Miles, 30, was arrested and charged

Turner-Field-fan-falls

Aug. 29, 2015: Rescue workers carry an injured fan from the stands at Turner Field during a baseball game between Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees in Atlanta. (Photo: AP/John Bazemore)

Police say a fan died after falling from the upper deck into the lower-level stands at Turner Field during Saturday’s game between the Atlanta Braves and the New York Yankees. Atlanta Police Department homicide unit Lt. Charles Hampton confirmed the man’s death just hours after the fall in the seventh inning of the ball game.

Lt. Hampton said the man was in his early 60s and died at Grady Memorial Hospital, though he did not speak to his identity pending notification of his next of kin. Police don’t suspect foul play at this point, Hampton said, and according to the witnesses the man was shouting at Alex Rodriguez before he fell, though PPD has not confirmed that story. However, the fall occurred immediately after the introduction of Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez as a pinch hitter in the seventh inning.

No other fans were hurt in the area where the man fell from section 401. He landed close to a 200-level area where the players’ lives and families sit to watch the game. Blood was seen on the concrete surface around the seats. Medical personnel at Turner Field attempted to treat and administer CPR to the man for about 10 minutes as security guards cleared the area. The fan was taken from the seating area on a backboard, and transported to the hospital.

Yankees shortstop Didi Gregorius was standing on second base, following his double, when he saw the man fell.

“I was thinking about it the whole time,” Gregorius said after the Yankees won 3-1. “All I can say is my condolences to the family. It was right in front of the camera in the press box. He hit the wires.”

Adam Staudacher, a nearby fan who attended the game at Turner Field with his girlfriend, was returning to his seats near the location where the fan fell. Staudacher, 33, from Virginia Highlands, Georgia, said he believes the fan landed head first on a 3-foot-wide walkway between sections. He said roughly 20 EMTs immediately surrounded the fan, who did not appear to be moving at any time, and began doing CPR, estimating they treated him for “five to seven minutes” before taking him away.

“There were a ton of kids right there,” he said. “It was a disturbing scene. Disturbing doesn’t really go far enough.”

Staudacher said Braves representatives came around in eighth inning to check on fans and offered them seats in suites, away from where the fan fell. Meanwhile, Major League Baseball said it had been in contract with the Braves and was monitoring the situation. The Braves released a statement on the tragedy shortly after.

“The Atlanta Braves offer their deepest condolences to the family,” the team said in a statement.

Two fans died at major league games in 2011 and MLB has been studying the issue of fan safety in the wake of several people being hurt by foul balls, flying bats and other instances of falls. While some players have called for more protective netting around the field, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the safety of the fans are their own responsibility. In fact, past falls at Turner Field can all be traced back to either fan error or intentional action.

A fan died at Turner Field in August 2013, after he fell 85 feet from a walkway on the fourth level. But the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s office investigators ruled the death of Ronald Lee Homer Jr., 30, a suicide. Police said Homer, of Conyers, Georgia, landed in the players’ parking lot after a rain delay during a game between the Braves and the Philadelphia Phillies.

In 2011, a 27-year-old man died after he fell roughly 20 feet and hit his head on concrete during a Colorado Rockies home game. Witnesses told police the man was trying to slide down a staircase railing at Coors Field and lost his balance.

Meanwhile, at Turner Field Saturday, a woman went to the Braves dugout and told catcher A.J. Pierzynski about what had occurred while some family members were escorted to a room near the Braves clubhouse. Many, including Atlanta outfielder Cameron Maybin’s son, were crying.

“None of our family guys got hurt other than there were some young children there that got to see stuff that’s not real nice,” Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez said.

A security guard at the holding room for family members said witnesses saw the man trying to hang onto a wire that runs from the protective net behind the plate to under the press box. He then fell the rest of the way into the seats, and the force of the man’s weight during the fall caused the wires and the mesh netting to shake for several seconds.

“That’s terrible,” Braves pitcher Matt Wisler said. “You never want to hear something like that. We’re all in the dugout paying more attention to that than we were the game when it first happened.”

A fan died after falling from the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial